But I think part of the question here is precisely regarding the definition of those standards; if they are so all over the place that it's virtually impossible to even define what a "good" and a "bad" paper is, then isn't your field in trouble? The 2nd point I am sympathetic to.
-
Depends on the journal, won't it? There are non-gatekeeping journals in mathematics, too (probably predatory ones, but there you go). Again, the Sokal case was for a journal that deliberately didn't use peer review to decide whether to accept or reject, rightly or wrongly.
If the idea is that fields like mathematics or theoretical physics are immune to deliberate fraud, there are reasons to suspect they are not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair …
-
-
I know they are not. Everything is susceptible to fraud. But the goal should be to make these journals less susceptible across all disciplines. Like how companies hire penetration testers (hackers) to test their security.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.